BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 07-22-2015, 08:00 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default Dexa vs. Calipers for BF Estimation

Main site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 07-22-2015, 09:57 AM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 649
Default

I also posted this in the comments section.

I was DEXA scanned last summer at 14.2%, and most of the comments in your forums estimated me at 7 – 9% (note, it was just an upper body shot, no back or legs…so this may have adjusted things a bit higher maybe around 10 – 11%). But I received some comments such as, “14%?!! If you lost any more fat you’d be dead.” Well, I’ve since lost another 3 – 4 pounds since then and no strength in the gym.

I’m inclined to think the DEXA is fairly accurate, and since it’s an updated method, it’s simply able to pick up more body fat than a caliper would. I’ll try to pull up the study later, but DEXA was compared to the even more sophisticated four compartment model, which (shocker), was even higher than DEXA.

The best I can come up with, is you’ve stated that 3% for a male is essential body fat that is in the brain/spine. My DEXA scan separated my percentages by body part, and my head had the highest percentage at 25%. This 3% essential fat could make up the discrepancy between older methods (you can’t pinch your brain with a caliper) and a DEXA scan. For example, contest lean bodybuilders that are near death would be 3 – 4% using old methods. Alberto Nunez is a famous example who is absolutely shredded before a contest, and was scanned around 6%.

This is my long winded way of saying, a quick and dirty way of comparing the new and the old, would be to take 3% off what the DEXA scan gives you. So, an “internet 5 – 6%” would actually be a DEXA 8 – 9%.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 07-22-2015, 12:16 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Yup, saw it on the main site. Same comment, a single measurement does not define the systematic difference; mine was only for an example.

As well, are you really gonna nitpick 3 vs. 4-6%

It's all an estimate for goodness sake.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 08-15-2015, 09:02 PM
VinnyG VinnyG is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 35
Default

someone posted that link on the comments> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15162135

so i threw that formula on my spreadsheet and it returned the exact same value as the Joe Parrillo 9-site formula:

High-performance bodybuilding. J. Parrillo and M. Greenwood-Robinson. Berkeley Publishing group, NY. pp. 169-172.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 08-15-2015, 09:37 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

So calipers about 3% lower than DEXA using standard equations if I'm reading it right.

About what's in the article, maybe a little less.

I'll have to get this full text
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 04-08-2016, 05:20 AM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 649
Default

I haven't seen this study posted yet.

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v.../1602131a.html

"Prediction of DXA-determined whole body fat from skinfolds: importance of including skinfolds from the thigh and calf in young, healthy men and women."

"CONCLUSIONS:

The results of this study confirm that lower body skinfolds are highly related to percent body fat in fit and healthy young men and women, and uphold current recommendations by the British Olympic Association to include the thigh skinfold with sigma4skf. Conventional use of the sigma4skf to estimate percent body fat is significantly enhanced by the inclusion of the thigh and calf skinfolds, either independently or in combination. In this group of males and females, the sum of the thigh and calf skinfolds accounted for the most variance in percent fat."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 09-21-2016, 03:19 PM
BenK BenK is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1
Default

Great article. I had some issues with the results (like most people it seems) after having my DEXA scan. It seems they are using some altered algorithm to calibrate the results - basically if your report says "NHANES BCA calibration" you will typically have higher BF%

I've found this recently: http://www.bodydexafit.com.au/Body_D...le_athlete.pdf - last two slides describe the calibration and compare results with and without the NHANES.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 09-22-2016, 09:41 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 911
Default

Interesting, sounds like the BIA 'athlete' vs. 'non-athlete' setting or whatever.

But like all of this, athletes may not be representative of the general population and this probably throws the values somewhat.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 09-22-2016, 12:36 PM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenK View Post
Great article. I had some issues with the results (like most people it seems) after having my DEXA scan. It seems they are using some altered algorithm to calibrate the results - basically if your report says "NHANES BCA calibration" you will typically have higher BF%

I've found this recently: http://www.bodydexafit.com.au/Body_D...le_athlete.pdf - last two slides describe the calibration and compare results with and without the NHANES.
I'll have to check out those slides later. Maybe this is why my body fat kept coming up as 14% from the hospital's DEXA even though I was <10% (estimated 7 - 9 on both of these forums). I highly doubt their DEXA for bone density scans was calibrated for "athletes".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 09-22-2016, 04:14 PM
alcahuetej's Avatar
alcahuetej alcahuetej is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 649
Default

I just checked my scan, and it used the NHANES method. By that method, a male bodybuilder is ~10%. I was 14.2% in 2013, and earlier this year 14.4%. Back in 2013 my trunk (upper abs and chest I believe) were the leanest at 12%.

That makes more sense.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.